Table 2.
Benefit of combined electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) in pitch perception compared to conventional cochlear implants and the ‘electrical stimulation alone’ condition
| Study | Insertion depth of short cochlear implant (mm) |
Manufacturer/ make of short cochlear implant |
No. of combined EAS patients tested |
Past-operative hearing test |
Time-period after implantation (months) |
Significant benefit of combined EAS y = yes, n - no |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compared to conventional cochlear implants |
Turner et al.,7 |
10 | Nucleus Hybrid | 3 | Speech recognition in noise |
12 | n |
| Gantz et al.,10 |
10 | Nucleus Hybrid | 14 | Speech recognition in noise |
12 | y | |
| Lorens et al.,13 |
18–22 | MedEl Combi 40+/40+M | 11 | Speech recognition in noise |
12 | y | |
| Turner et al.,7 |
10 | Nucleus Hybrid | 3 | Speech recognition in multitalker babble |
12 | y | |
| Gantz et al.,10 |
10 | Nucleus Hybrid | 14 | Speech recognition in multitalker babble |
12 | y | |
| Gantz et al.,8 |
10 | Nucleus Hybrid | 5 | Melody recognition | 12 | y | |
| Compared to ‘electrical stimulation alone’ condition |
Lorens et al.,13 |
18–22 | MedEl Combi 40+/40+M | 11 | Speech recognition test in noise |
12 | y |
| 18–22 | MedEl Combi 40+/40+M | 11 | Speech recognition test in noise |
12 | y | ||
| Kiefer et al.,9 |
19–24 | MedEl Combi 40+/40+M | 12 | Sentence recognition test in noise |
12 | y | |
| Lenarz et al.,12 |
16 | Nucleus Hybrid-L | 1 | Sentence recognition test a in noise |
1 | y | |
| 16 | Nucleus Hybrid-L | 1 | Sentence recognition test b in noise |
1 | y | ||
| James et al.,11 |
17 | Nucleus 24 contour advance |
7 | Sentence recognition in multitalker babble noise |
6 | y |